We OB/GYNs say we have two patients. The mother AND the baby. How can a baby be our patient if it isn’t alive - if it’s just a clump of cells? It is a human. It is a life. We are just as ethically bound to protect it as we are take the life of the mother.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @OmarHamada
in USA OB/GYNs perform most genital mutilations of newborn boys--that's how much they care for this "patient" born with the diagnosis "male"
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
-
-
Circumcision has health benefits.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
yes, but only in the "medicine" practiced in the USA and in jewish folklore
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Incorrect. Physicians worldwide acknowledge that there are health, and other, benefits to circumcision.
7 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @scragsma70 @Cukullen and
If physicians worldwide acknowledge these supposed benefits then why are some 80% of the world's men intact, with less than 1% of them getting circumcised later in life? Why does circ only thrive in places where it's forced onto children/babies who can't say no?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @redpillPA @Cukullen and
Because both the benefits and the downside are relatively trivial. There's no universal consensus in the medical community. Hence, it is and ought to be purely a matter of preference. Definitely not worthy of your manic crusade.
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like
benefits are non-existent and downsides are catastrophic, from hundreds killed annually to the normative sexual dysfunction prevalent in USA. if you are interested in physician consensus, consider the history of MGM in Australia and Britain: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
